I have a respect for atheists, and I’d even go as far as defending them against unwarranted and unfair claims made by Christians. However, sometimes atheists go too far and make themselves look like fools. Philosopher Peter Boghossian is one of them. Why? Just to whet the appetite, in one of his lectures to fellow atheists he said that “When I speak to speak to somebody of faith, I view them as a person who really is mentally ill” (1).

This rhetoric made up a fair portion of a 2014 discussion/debate he had with Christian philosopher Tim McGrew on a Christian radio show called “Unbelievable.” Boghossian was discussing some of his views he presented in his book A Manual For Creating Atheists which could be argued to be different to other atheist books given it presents itself as a manual with a purpose: creating atheists, converting people to atheism, and training atheists in presenting their views. In his first chapter he says that his book offers “conversational tools to talk people out of their faith and help them to embrace reason.” Obviously if one disagrees with Boghossian then he is unreasonable because Boghossian has climbed the tallest peak of reason and planted his own flag on top, so he believes. Nonetheless, he addresses those who remain unpersuaded by his views in two points,

“This section will unpack the two primary reasons for this appearance of failure [convincing someone of the truth of atheism]: either (1) an interlocutor’s brain is neurologically damaged, or (2) you’re actually succeeding. In the latter case, an interlocutor’s verbal behavior indicates that your intervention is failing–for example, they’re getting angry or raising their voice, or they seem to become even more entrenched in their belief. Such protests may actually indicate a successful treatment” (2).

According to Boghossian either the person is brain damaged (and must undergo a successful treatment) or he is indeed being persuaded by the truths of atheism and refusing to admit it. The latter being associated with the religious person resorting to shouting, getting angry etc., which naively suggests that there are no religious people who could politely disagree and who would not resort to shouting, getting angry etc. He continues,

“In instances of damage to the brain, no dialectical intervention will be effective in eliciting cognitive and attitudinal change. These and other conditions like some strokes, intracranial tumors, or Alzheimer’s disease affect the brain and are beyond the reach of nonmedical interventions. In short, if someone is suffering from a brain-based faith delusion your work will be futile” (3)

So, if you do not admit Boghossian is right then you must be brain damaged (suffering a brain-based cognitive deficiency like a stroke or tumor). This is obvious fallacious and nonsensical at its best. Empirically, there are studies suggesting that being religious has advantages over being non-religious. For instance, religious and spiritual people who participate in religious activities such as prayer, meditation and attendance at religious meetings tend to have better physical health than non-believers. A number of researchers in a journal article “Religion and mental health,” concluded that “hundreds of epidemiological studies performed during the last decades have shown a different picture. Religiousness remains an important aspect of human life and it usually has a positive association with good mental health” (4).

But beyond this obvious blunder, Boghossian has no comprehension that one might disagree with him because he presents bad logic, reasoning, and arguments. This can be chalked down to an open arrogance and lack of humility on his part. A humble person would admit the possibility of being incorrect in some of his views, and might even concede holding some of his views tentatively (But Boghossian has evidently beaten everyone to the pinnacle of the peak of reason). Boghossian also does not seem to be aware that many religious people feel that they have good epistemic warrant for holding to their beliefs, and that they would consider the arguments presented in his book as weak and unconvincing.

Not your evidence.

Moreover, what is particularly unfortunate are the popular level atheists who have endorsed Boghossian’s book. Philosopher and theologian Randal Rauser, who has provided a scathing critique of Boghossians book, rightly captures our shared disappointment. He identified a “list of well known atheists that have endorsed this book: Victor Stenger, Richard Carrier, Guy Harrison, John Loftus, Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins. This disappoints me deeply because I would never endorse a book of Christian evangelism that attributed all evangelistic resistance to the brain damage or sin of the non-Christian. And yet these individuals endorse Boghossian’s invocation of the same indoctrinational categories in defense of atheism. Assuming that all these individuals read the book, it must be that they are in broad agreement with Boghossian’s categories” (5).

Randal further observes that at the end of the exchange he had with McGrew, Boghossian engages “in a nauseating “make nice” bit by inviting Justin Brierley and Tim McGrew to drop in and see him, should they ever be in Portland. That’s like listening to a misogynist rant for an hour on how women are intellectual inferiors who should stay in the kitchen and then adding a final make nice: “But if any of you lovely ladies are ever in Portland, be sure to give me a call.” Talk about pathetic.”

But let’s not make more of this than we can. Truthfully, Boghossian’s views are hugely damaging for atheism in general, and it is therefore easy to paint atheists and atheism in this light (this is arguably one of several reasons why atheists are the least trusted group in American society. Even Sam Harris stated that atheism is “right next to child molester as a designation.”). Most good, moral atheists (which are obviously not Boghossian nor those who endorse his book) would not hold such views of religious people. We ought to bear that in mind.

Here’s another gem from Boghossian,

“We must reconceptualize faith as a virus of the mind … and treat faith like other epidemiological crises: contain and eradicate… (6) Children raised in a faith-based household should receive “interventions designed to rid subjects of the faith affliction” (7).

I would never have suspected that the majority of people in history who made scientific discoveries, precisely because they were convinced there is a creator who designed an orderly reality for science to even be possible, had brain damage. Since most people in general have been theists for all of history, he would have inherited whatever would have given us brain damage too. Theists aren’t the ones claiming that consciousness ends at death, making everything and one we could ever do or love a waste, so even living can’t be justified. But one needs to exist in order to even be able to know the truth of anything, so the implications of atheism are contradictory. Atheists admit that delusion is required to believe there is purpose to anything they do . . . in a life that can have none according to them. Way to be more logical than the majority population. You ought to check a certain other ideology for brain damage. Being calm about the belief that everyone will eventually not exist isn’t courage, it’s insanity.

I would not call him pathetic. But a little off the mark that belief in god indicates mental illness. I do think that religion pushing away god, does invariably lead to abuse including mental illness.

Bogossian comes from religion. He will continue to talk and believe god does not exist until if he is lucky it saves his life and tells him who it is.

Yet I do not completely condemn religion, indeed, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find and see where we can leave religion behind. It lightens humanity and increases consciousness. We need religion to stop a war with god. But we need a larger proportion of humanity to not be religious, to help control the mental illness, abuse, violence, killing that religion often normalizes.

A sincerely held and intractable belief that those who disagree with you are in someway mentally deficient in some way is, in itself, indicative of, at the very least, cognitive dissonance, and, at worst, a sociopathic inclination.

Everything inside me says WRONG, when I think of thinking process, this discussion as basically a bunch of electrons colliding at random inside my brain.
“Moral atheist” – Sir, surely, you have to be kidding me. What is going to guide your morals is there is no awareness of God in you? Your own carnal desires and passion. Not to mention the fact that morality itself is an evolutionary disadvantage. So if you claim there is a morality and things like compassion, kindness, humbleness – then you need to disavow evolution
Cheers

I just want everyone to know that not all atheists are like Boghossian. I think it’s quite below the belt to label religious people as “mentally ill”.

So, by that logic, apparently, almost everyone is brain damaged. I think we can all get along without calling each other stupid, ill, etc.

As usual, the vocal minority in a group gets the attention. I like to read atheists/agnostics that are respectful and open to dialogue (e.g. Paul Draper, J.L. Schellenberg, Wes Morriston, Graham Oppy, etc.)

James Bishop

Hi. I am James. I live in South Africa where I am currently studying theology & philosophy, and majoring in psychology (graduate 2018). I graduated in marketing and brand communications majoring in multimedia design (2014). I also obtained TESOL in 2017. Welcome to my blog!